Ex-employee’s discriminatory termination claims dismissed

Where a former employee of an electric cooperative alleged she was terminated because of her sex, national origin, religion, race and/or age, but there were no allegations showing the decisionmaker exhibited any bias against women, Iraqi-Kurds, Muslims or older workers, and she did not identify any comparators, these claims were dismissed.

Background

Kanar Sarraj has sued her former employer, Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative, or NOVEC, for sex, national origin, and religious discrimination in violation of Title VII; race discrimination in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or ADEA; a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII, § 1981 and the ADEA and retaliation in violation of Title VII, § 1981 and the ADEA. NOVEC has filed a motion to dismiss.

Discrimination

Sarraj first asserts claims for sex, national origin and religious discrimination based upon her 2019 demotion. The court holds that these claims are plausible and actionable if the demotion occurred within 300 days from the date when Sarraj filed her charge of discrimination (July 10, 2019). Because the complaint is not clear on when the demotion took place, plaintiff will be permitted to amend her complaint to make clear whether her July 2019 demotion occurred before or after the July 10, 2019, cutoff date.

Plaintiff argues that, even if the demotion occurred prior to July 10, 2019, it is timely under the “continuing violations” doctrine. Plaintiff is incorrect. This doctrine applies to hostile work environment claims, not to discrete claims for discrimination.

With respect to the 2021 termination, while that claim is timely, it is not plausible. Plaintiff does not allege that the decisionmaker exhibited any bias against women, Iraqi-Kurds or Muslims. Nor does plaintiff point to any similarly situated comparators with respect to her termination. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss must be granted with respect to plaintiff’s claims of sex, national origin, and religious discrimination based on her termination.

Race discrimination

Plaintiff premises her race discrimination claims on her “Iraqi­Kurdish” identity. Plaintiff relies on allegations that Bob Bisson made derogatory remarks related to plaintiff being a Muslim and from a foreign country. These allegations, however, do not relate to plaintiff’s race. Accordingly, her claims of race discrimination must be dismissed.

Even assuming that plaintiff’s Iraqi-Kurdish identity could support her race discrimination claim (which it cannot), plaintiff’s Title VII claim based on her termination must fail for the same reason that her other Title VII claims failed. Additionally, plaintiff has not satisfied the pleading standard for a § 1981 claim because plaintiff has not alleged facts which plausibly demonstrate that “but for race, she would not have suffered the loss of a legally protected right.”

ADEA

As above, the age discrimination based upon demotion claim is plausible and actionable if the demotion occurred within 300 days from the date when Sarraj filed her charge of discrimination (July 10, 2019). However, plaintiff’s claim that her termination was also the result of age discrimination does not survive the motion to dismiss because she cannot point to a similarly situated comparator with respect to her role nor does plaintiff point to any other specific, factual allegations related to the age discrimination that she alleges caused her termination.

Hostile work environment

Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that the purported harassment by Bisson or Kevin Whyte was based on her race or age. Plaintiff’s claim of a sex-based hostile work environment is also flawed. However plaintiff can attempt to replead this claim if she can allege facts showing that other individuals also made sex-based comments.

Plaintiff’s claim of a retaliatory hostile work environment also fails to state a plausible claim because she does not allege facts showing that Bisson or Whyte, her alleged harassers, knew of her protected activities. However, at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for a hostile work environment based on her national origin and religion.

Retaliation

Plaintiff’s retaliation claims fail because they are time barred and/or there is no causal connection between the alleged protected activity and the alleged retaliation. If, however, the plaintiff can plead that she engaged in protected activity closer in time to her 2021 termination, she may be able to state a plausible claim for retaliation.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss granted in part, denied in part.

Sarraj v. Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative, Case No. 1:22-cv-12, July 18, 2022. EDVA at Alexandria (Ellis). VLW 022-3-308. 23 pp.